More sad news for FS9...

[Felixthreeone]

Lionheart announced ne Epic VLJ will be FSX only..
FSD announced Cirrus Vision jet FSX only.....

.....I am deeply disappointed....and hope that we don't lose any more FS9 developers; There are many nice products that are being made for FSX...however, after seeing some of them in action (i had installed fsx to check a few of them out) I wonder what the big deal is....i dont see much of a difference from fs9 to x...i dont need rivets and so on...just a quality fde and a functioning vc...and smooth fluid performance. So if poly counts and details so minute are the important things in FS, I think I have been missing the boat the whole time. I always thought it was about....flying? Sorry for ranting but as of right now i am losing my patience with this whole ridiculous fs thing...

[Ashaman]

Why be sad? It only means they do not want or need to have a wide market to sell to for little money, but prefer to sell to few ones FOR A LOT OF CASH. :rolleyes:

To all those who abandon a ship that works better than the other they jump in, I say "good riddance" and "may you have to file for bankruptcy soon". :)

[Ferry_vO]

The developers have a choice for what sim they want to build, and consumers have a choice what to buy or which sim to use. :mixedsmi:

With the higher poly count, better textures and more animations in FsX I can see why developers are making the move to FsX, especially a 'detail junkie' like Bill. I can understand that Bill doesn't want to reduce detail on his models to a point that it will work in Fs9, because this will mean an almost complete rebuild.
If you look at the forum visitors here, you will notice that the FsX forum on average has 3-4 times the visitors than the Fs9 forum at any time; two years ago that was the other way around.

If YOU made the choice to stick with Fs9 after you've tried FsX, that's your choice; don't complain that others decide otherwise. If you want to fly the latest aircraft, there's only one way to go.

And Ashaman: Thanks for those comments. My financial status is fine and I can run FsX on my computer very well, thank you. As for the 'Good riddance' comment, I have a button that can do that for you now if you keep up the smart comments.. :pop4:

[MattJeo11]

Here we go again :barf:

[Brian_Gladden]

I'm running FS9 because my computer can't run FSX well. To be honest, it chugs along with Bill's FS-9 planes (Eaglesofts too) but that's me. I don't begrudge Bill for making super detailed models. I know what it's like being a (former) developer myself. if you are doing it to supplement your income like Bill is, good for him. Consumers are always asking for higher and higher quality models that need more and more complex computers to run. It's smart marketing to sell to your target audience. While Carenendo is still doing FS9 planes (I'm glad) they stick to the lower tech aircraft that lend themselves to "back dating" to FS9.

Just my $0.02


Brian

[Daube]

Why be sad? It only means they do not want or need to have a wide market to sell to for little money, but prefer to sell to few ones FOR A LOT OF CASH. :rolleyes:

To all those who abandon a ship that works better than the other they jump in, I say "good riddance" and "may you have to file for bankruptcy soon". :)

Very good philosophy, Ashaman. Congratulations.

[Tom Clayton]

I've seen too many developers that just plain quit because people think they're "entitled" to get what they want from people that do this because they simply enjoy it.

As for payware developers, the only time you get to dictate what they do is if you enter into a contract for a commissioned work. Otherwise, they get the same respect as freeware developers unless you've purchased a product and then have issues.

As a child so many years ago, I was taught that if you can't say something nice (or at least useful), SHUT UP!

[harleyman]

Well said Tom a ferry....


Now kindly tell Bill you are sorry...LOL :bump:

[Francois]

As a child so many years ago, I was taught that if you can't say something nice (or at least useful), SHUT UP!

I second that.

Unfortunately most of the Internet's forums could be closed when we would take that as a firm rule :pop4:

My policy is to just ignore all the nay-sayers and impolite posters and 'go my own way'.

[OleBoy]

I understand those comments in the opening two posts here, and I can relate. But the world doesn't stop turning just because you turn out your lights and go to sleep. I enjoy FS2004. Being new to it as I am, I've got years of enjoyment to endure.

Of all the posts I've read, this part of the flight sim world has evolved and has been circling in existence very happily. Those developers who have stuck around are all great assets to this particular state of virtual reality. Be thankful for them, and what they give to us to continue doing that. And to add to that, it's not just the developers that continue to add to your enjoyment. Myself, and many others that enjoy doing repaints, also continue to make FS2004 thrive. Even those who edit config files, make better sound packs, tweak and modify. That's for everyone's enjoyment!!!

Not meaning to offend anyone here. But if you don't like the what's put on the table, YOU DO THE COOKING!!

[PilatusTurbo]

Fleetwood Mac put it the best, "You can go your own way!"

However, I don't think it's too cool to wish negative sh** on people. I hate losing good developers, too, but it is their choice.

The day FS9 loses Carenado, I'll run for sharp objects. :d :d ;)

[stiz]

all i'll say is ... if you know Bill, you'll know it was an extremly hard decision for him to make :salute:

[Felixthreeone]

Please guys don't mistake what I am saying as me bashing them in any way....I am personally just very disappointed since the addons that they produce are very very good and I own them all...I am not saying ANYTHING fs9 versus FSX; All I am doing is expressing my personal feelings of frustration since I was looking forward to these products for my sim. I am not trying to start an argument. And I apologize to Bill and the FSD team as well if it sounded as though I was. My bad.

[LonelyplanetXO]

Stitz would be correct; must have been a hard call for Bill to make - especially as his primary sim is FS9. The Victory was his first "contracted" project where to expedite delivery he's used third party developers. That would push up his cost & presumably he'd have had to decide whether redeveloping the model for FS9 (effectively a start again task) would be justified by the return. FSD must have been in the same boat with the Cirrus. Guess there's not enough of us buying new releases for FS9 anymore. Ah well, I've got way more aircraft than I can ever fly and I'm very happy with FS9. And there's still freeware coming out all the time. I'll be happy until whatever the next FS is arrives.

LPXO

[smilo]

Please guys don't mistake what I am saying as me bashing them in any way....I am personally just very disappointed since the addons that they produce are very very good and I own them all...I am not saying ANYTHING fs9 versus FSX; All I am doing is expressing my personal feelings of frustration since I was looking forward to these products for my sim. I am not trying to start an argument. And I apologize to Bill and the FSD team as well if it sounded as though I was. My bad.

just my take on this;
I see nothing wrong with your comments, Felix.
many of us agree.
I, for one, can not afford to upgrade my system for FSX.
don't know if I ever will.
there is no way that I can expect the rest of the world to stop
because I can't keep up with the advances in technology.
that's just the way it is.
as far as I'm concerned,
the beef is with the BS comments quoted below.
Ashman is the one who should be apologizing,
not you, Felixthreeone


Why be sad? It only means they do not want or need to have a wide market to sell to for little money, but prefer to sell to few ones FOR A LOT OF CASH. :rolleyes:

To all those who abandon a ship that works better than the other they jump in, I say "good riddance" and "may you have to file for bankruptcy soon". :)

[harleyman]

Please guys don't mistake what I am saying as me bashing them in any way....I am personally just very disappointed since the addons that they produce are very very good and I own them all...I am not saying ANYTHING fs9 versus FSX; All I am doing is expressing my personal feelings of frustration since I was looking forward to these products for my sim. I am not trying to start an argument. And I apologize to Bill and the FSD team as well if it sounded as though I was. My bad.




We know and understand your frustration...We just poking fun at ya is all...

No harm was done , fom you or anyone towards Bill...He had a tough decission to make, his dinner depends on his abality to make a correct judgement call..As stated earlier..It was no doubt hard for him to decide...



I never thought you were launching a personal attach at anyone..Just a general..OH CRAP...What next...I understand that feeling all to well..

[dogknot]

...snipped... Ah well, I've got way more aircraft than I can ever fly...snipped...

nothing could be more true! ....it's fun though, isn't it. :jump:

[falcon409]

Just to add a bit about developers in general. If every developer freeware or payware had a payroll of 15 to 20 people working for them I suspect we might see more dual releases. After all, with that many people, one could afford to have one group working the FSX development and the other the FS9 development. Fact is, most, if not all of these guys are one man shops. They are also one man shops with regular jobs in most cases, so development is relegated to the evening hours and weekends if the wifey allows it.

I, for one would never put up with the frustrations that must go along with developing one highly detailed, all the systems must work as advertised, "how many variants are you going to include?", "will it have the intake screen included like the one I saw at an air show a couple years ago?" Addon. Oh and I almost forgot, "is it done yet, is it done yet. . .do you have a release date yet?".

Developers have the right to choose a platform and stay with it, for those reasons and many more that no one here knows about or cares about. Be disappointed if you want, vent your frustrations in a reasonable and respectable manner. Anything beyond that is unnecessary especially when you don't know the whole story.

[Blackbird686]

Be disappointed if you want, vent your frustrations in a reasonable and respectable manner. Anything beyond that is unnecessary especially when you don't know the whole story.

In 98% of all cases of disappointment and frustration, silence is golden.... it's just a flight sim. and the silence keeps em' guessing.

I fly both sims and I look at it this way: If a developer decides to produce his product for FSX only, that's cool by me. It sometimes means that his FS9 products could be had for a song. Not always the case, but sometimes. On the other side of the arguement, that developers FSX products will be even better, given the possibilities with that sim.

Even the darkest of clouds have a silver lining when it comes to FS.

Just my two bits.

BB686:USA-flag:

[cheezyflier]

To all those who abandon a ship that works better than the other they jump in, I say "good riddance" and "may you have to file for bankruptcy soon". :)


the thing is, most developers are making sooo much money, it's a wonder they ever produce anything at all after their first release. of course we've all heard the stories of their rockstar lifestyles. the women, the lavish mansions, garages full of exotic cars, etc. it's easy to hate those guys, especially when you see them on mtv cribs, hangin with snoop dog and maria carey, denzel washington, and the rest of the rich and powerful. it's a wonder how they sleep at night.

[FlyTexas]

the thing is, most developers are making sooo much money, it's a wonder they ever produce anything at all after their first release. of course we've all heard the stories of their rockstar lifestyles. the women, the lavish mansions, garages full of exotic cars, etc. it's easy to hate those guys, especially when you see them on mtv cribs, hangin with snoop dog and maria carey, denzel washington, and the rest of the rich and powerful. it's a wonder how they sleep at night.

Ain't it the truth. Here's a recent pic of Lionheart and his friend. :icon_lol:

Brian

[Cazzie]

the thing is, most developers are making sooo much money, it's a wonder they ever produce anything at all after their first release. of course we've all heard the stories of their rockstar lifestyles. the women, the lavish mansions, garages full of exotic cars, etc. it's easy to hate those guys, especially when you see them on mtv cribs, hangin with snoop dog and maria carey, denzel washington, and the rest of the rich and powerful. it's a wonder how they sleep at night.


Nothing pleases me more than good sarcasm! :bump:

Caz

[Wing_Z]

Sorry to see you go Bill.
Of course you can always visit as a civilian in your favourite FS Forum! ;)

[n4gix]

It's strictly a numbers decision folks. This past year has seen the ratio of FS9-to-FSX sales for dual released products dwindle down to a pitiful 1:5...

One FS9 sale for every five FSX sales... :running:

[Chacha]

the thing is, most developers are making sooo much money, it's a wonder they ever produce anything at all after their first release. of course we've all heard the stories of their rockstar lifestyles. the women, the lavish mansions, garages full of exotic cars, etc. it's easy to hate those guys, especially when you see them on mtv cribs, hangin with snoop dog and maria carey, denzel washington, and the rest of the rich and powerful. it's a wonder how they sleep at night.

A good statement there CF....

They have to pay just to have that 20 minute sleep :pop4:

It is hard, their mind is like a big machine that if you turn if off, it is still working.... and working... and working, there is no off button....

even in their sleep, their mind is still at work, imagine that!

I wonder if they are thinking how to spend their money? :engel016:

[Lionheart]

the thing is, most developers are making sooo much money, it's a wonder they ever produce anything at all after their first release. of course we've all heard the stories of their rockstar lifestyles. the women, the lavish mansions, garages full of exotic cars, etc. it's easy to hate those guys, especially when you see them on mtv cribs, hangin with snoop dog and maria carey, denzel washington, and the rest of the rich and powerful. it's a wonder how they sleep at night.


LOLOLOLOL.....

LMAO....

I almost fell off my chair laughing so hard.. Oh man.. Thanks for that.


Yes, I am a FS9 guy. :d


As I stated in another thread (the Epic Victory thread in the FSX room), I have had to make the decision to go to FSX only on the Victory because I needed parts to be super detailed, I need a TON of parts and I hit my limit already (early in the game) twice, several weeks ago. I have been stalled in depression up until Christmas where, during prayer, asking God for a way to fix this, it occurred to me (that calm answer that comes to you like a gentle wind) that for now, I could make (continue) the Epic Victory in FSX only format.


You see, I (me) wants to make FS9 planes. They are easier to make. They never have bugs or issues, never crash computers (rarely in FS9), and run good. They are great! I release them and usually only get back great feedback from FS9 people. But FSX is filled with 'my plane is black, my plane crashes my computer, my this happens, my that happens, it turns pink, it turns into a pile of parts like it went through a black hole'......

So you see, I would love to do only FS9 planes..


But, I need details, small parts, close vertices, and TONS and TONS of parts, which means I need a compiler that can make a FS9 plane with no limitations on polygons, and no limitations on vertice proximity distances.

EDIT: ADDED; In my studies on my own on the FS9 compiler, I found out that the 'antiquated' compiler uses MASM code, which was designed around Pentium 386 and 486 chips. The compiler dumps the entire model into the RAM memory pool for compiling, doing this all at once. (What it could do, is do the interior, then exterior, but the actual MDL compiler, MakeMDL.exe, does the entire model in one go.. The X files and ASM files are done in sets, not both at once). In the old days, if your 386 computer maxed out its memory on such a compiler, you crashed your computer. So they installed limitations on the compiler to keep people from crashing their computers. But today, when people have dual cores and quad cores and this is almost common now to have chips 10X faster then what they were back in the early FS2004 days, you can now run such a unlimited compiler with great ease.

Note; the CFS 3 compiler has 'no' limitations on polygons, and no proximity limitations either, and the 'field' of compiling is quite similar. You could almost say its almost the same, but the CFS platform uses different tag names and they utilise LOD's more then FS9/FSX.

Now, since I leaked this 'secret' in the other thread, here is the deal. I am secretly working with a huge, great programing guru on a new compiler for FS2004 which would have the limitations taken out. This would mean, I could make the Victory for FS9 as well. But this program isnt done yet. This is a pretty sophisticated process or thing to do. So far, its so complex that we are trying to do it by a secondary bypass. So far, no joy. But I am faithful.. I have been praying to God for this thing to happen for many years now. Lets see if this gentleman can do it. (Pray for him).


So just remember, you guys that are FS2004 only people, that I am on your side.

:ernae:



Bill

[Cees Donker]

LOLOLOLOL.....

LMAO....

I almost fell off my chair laughing so hard.. Oh man.. Thanks for that.


Yes, I am a FS9 guy. :d


As I stated in another thread (the Epic Victory thread in the FSX room), I have had to make the decision to go to FSX only on the Victory because I needed parts to be super detailed, I need a TON of parts and I hit my limit already (early in the game) twice, several weeks ago. I have been stalled in depression up until Christmas where, during prayer, asking God for a way to fix this, it occurred to me (that calm answer that comes to you like a gentle wind) that for now, I could make (continue) the Epic Victory in FSX only format.


You see, I (me) wants to make FS9 planes. They are easier to make. They never have bugs or issues, never crash computers (rarely in FS9), and run good. They are great! I release them and usually only get back great feedback from FS9 people. But FSX is filled with 'my plane is black, my plane crashes my computer, my this happens, my that happens, it turns pink, it turns into a pile of parts like it went through a black hole'......

So you see, I would love to do only FS9 planes..


But, I need details, small parts, close vertices, and TONS and TONS of parts, which means I need a compiler that can make a FS9 plane with no limitations on polygons, and no limitations on vertice proximity distances.

Now, since I leaked this 'secret' in the other thread, here is the deal. I am (was) secretly working with a huge, great programing guru on a new compiler for FS2004 which would have the limitations taken out. This would mean, I could make the Victory for FS9 as well. But this program isnt done yet. This is a pretty sophisticated process or thing to do. So far, its so complex that we are trying to do it by a secondary bypass. So far, no joy. But I am faithful.. I have been praying to God for this thing to happen for many years now. Lets see if this gentleman can do it. (Pray for him).


So just remember, you guys that are FS2004 only people, that I am on your side.

:ernae:



Bill

Bill,

You are a gentleman with a great heart. Chapeau my friend!

Greetz,

Cees

[Joe P]

That's too bad, since I would have bought both of those. Especially since I've bought most everything Bill has made, and I'd really like to have a Cirrus Vision Jet.

[Reddog]

In 98% of all cases of disappointment and frustration, silence is golden.... it's just a flight sim. and the silence keeps em' guessing.

I fly both sims and I look at it this way: If a developer decides to produce his product for FSX only, that's cool by me. It sometimes means that his FS9 products could be had for a song. Not always the case, but sometimes. On the other side of the arguement, that developers FSX products will be even better, given the possibilities with that sim.

Even the darkest of clouds have a silver lining when it comes to FS.

Just my two bits.

BB686:USA-flag:

yea and if u are running FSX with just SP1 all those neat FS9 a/c will work in FSX too, so best of both worlds :jump:

[smilo]

thanks for the insight, Bill
its way over my head
but I appreciate that you took the time to explain

[OleBoy]

Bill, I sense a true, if not truer (if that's a word) sense of dedication along your way of endeavors. You're a great modeler. Don't let the rest of the world hold you back!!! What you have made available, I've heard nothing but good from.:applause:

[Fnerg]

I would just like to add, try it. Learn how to do Gmax, it's not really that difficult. A year ago I knew nothing about modeling a plane. Now I think I know maybe 1/8 of what Bill or Milton knows, and it's enough to keep me excitedly coming back to the program.
If you are a dedicated FS9'er concerned about developers leaving for FSX? Then try to become an FS9 developer. Eventually, these Gmax methods will become basics for future developing...me thinks. Plus it's fun. And when you see your polygons flying around your computer screen, it's the best. Not to mention the encouragement you get from the developers themselves, and the community. Can't beat it. My 2 cents.

[Lionheart]

You know it Doug!

I second that. Gmax is awesome... Nothing like making a plane and putting in the sim and flying it....

Learning to tune airfiles is a horse of a different color though.. eeeks! lol..

[OBIO]

Bill

I fully understand your decision...and having read your other thread on this decision, I know it was not an easy one to make. I fully understand your desire to be able to produce superbly detailed models, and that the FS9 compiler prevents that. And I fully understand that FSX packages are out selling FS9 packages...and since these models are your livelihood, go where the money is. I own two of your packages.....one (the Epic LT) was purchased for me by another forum member and one (the JU-33..something like that) I bought when it was on sale. At some point I really need to pony up the money for your Belanca Air Cruiser (I think that's right).

Fnerg,

I could not agree with you more. Those who fear the loss of all FS9 developers need to grab Gmax, follow Gmax tutorial lessons a few times to familiarize themselves with the tools, then follow Milton Shupe's tutes and learn to model aircraft. I have started and stopped several times in my attempt to learn to use Gmax.....and I will try again at some point. Right now, my heart just isn't into it.

OBIO

[Henry]

Fnerg,

I could not agree with you more. Those who fear the loss of all FS9 developers need to grab Gmax, follow Gmax tutorial lessons a few times to familiarize themselves with the tools, then follow Milton Shupe's tutes and learn to model aircraft. I have started and stopped several times in my attempt to learn to use Gmax.....and I will try again at some point. Right now, my heart just isn't into it.

OBIO
i tried but now the pics of the babes have got me reinterested:icon_lol:
sadly life goes on
if anyone here remembers Graham a great dev for cfs2
VB planes, as the years go by the technical things change
and standards change i have been around since fs5
it took 2 years for me to get a pc to run cfs3
i still cannot run fsx correctly
it runs but not like fs9
im an old fart and just cannot keep up
but i try
one just cannot bury there head in the sand
and hope everything will be the same when we pull it out
thats just life
H

[Wing_Z]

Well I for one am perfectly happy to sit here in FS9-land and wait while Lionheart & Co. figure out a better compiler.
Plenty to do in the meantime...
I can just see me having to back off the sliders a notch because of all those polys and detail - in FS9! :d
Bring it on, Bill. :ernae:

PS
I think new users get FSX (is FS9 still for sale?) and not seeing a great freeware selection, go out and get the payware.
The freeware downloads are still overwhelmingly FS9, and probably will remain so, because of the complexity of FSX.
So existing users that went to FSX (and seem to hate FS9 portovers), also go for the payware.
This skews the apparent user base.
A recent AVSIM poll asked "What is your preferred flightsim?" and the majority - unsurprisingly - went with FS9.
The SOH poll (http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/showthread.php?t=12512) also shows this (Probably time for a new one though)
As to the apparently greater activity on FSX vs FS9 forums - well, in FS9 we are loong ago done with "Can I adjust my wiggle button without crashing the sim..." ;)
Bring it on, Bill. :ernae:

[srgalahad]

yea and if u are running FSX with just SP1 all those neat FS9 a/c will work in FSX too, so best of both worlds :jump:

Yep and another install of FSX SP1 +SP2...
and another one with SP1 + SP2 + Acceleration.

No sweat... then you can run anything... just a few moments every time you want to change.

I have nothing against FSX, other than it's need for "more". It's installed on one machine and probably will be on this one, but until recently there haven't been enough reasons to go and use it.

There will still be FS9 planes coming out.. maybe not as many as often, but then most of the truly marketable ones have been done (or overdone).. so many of the others that we dream of would actually be pretty 'small market' items when it comes to sales and potential sales vs workload IS part of a payware developer's business plan.

Rob

[MCDesigns]

So just remember, you guys that are FS2004 only people, that I am on your side.

:ernae:



Bill

Just a thought Bill, but comments like this might not be beneficial in building any FSX customer base since it's obvious your heart isn't into their sim of choice.

Best of luck with the new compiler.

[Felixthreeone]

With all due respect, Michael, there is nothing wrong with having FS9 as your personal favorite...after all....some people still consider fs2002 their personal favorite, and FSX wouldn't exist without fs9 and so on...so for a developer who is as well respected as Bill Ortis to say that he has a soft spot for fs9 isn't in any way telling me that FSX folks will be getting less than 100% from him; He is one of the best fs developers out there today, and a great person to boot. That is the reason I started this thread; That is the reason for my disappointment. Too many developers out there whose hearts AREN'T in it...regardless of the sim they use...and when certian developers produce an addon, you know you are getting something special...something that required heart, soul, and dedication. I envy the FSX crowd that will be able to fire up the Epic VLJ when it is relesed. And i will peruse the FSX forum looking for screenshots and ooohs and aaaahs and how awesome it is....because everything that Bill does is excellent. Sorry I went off ranting again.....

[Lionheart]

Just a thought Bill, but comments like this might not be beneficial in building any FSX customer base since it's obvious your heart isn't into their sim of choice.

Best of luck with the new compiler.

Yeah, I probably shouldnt talk like that. I was nice though. :d

Thanks gang for the kind words.. Just a humble poly bender is all.


Bill

[VaporZ]

The other side of the coin

1.
Next Alphasim payware offer will be a Sepecat Jaguar GR.1 / GR.3
and it will be FS9 native ( ! ) including all foreing air arms versions.

( my next buy ! )

2.
Vit Storch ( Kyrypust ) of Czech Republic is still working on a freeware
Aero L-39C Albatross that will be FS9 native and will certainly be very
very popular when it will be made available.

3.
Ivan Jurcaga's "Mig Projekty" team of Czech Republic is working on a Full VC freeware Mig-21Bis Fishbed N that will be FS9 native and adapted for FSX too.

4.
GMax Ac Mirage 2000 family and Kirk Olsson's F-16 have been updated
by Eric Marciano with a very good payware "Hud & Radar" suite.

5.
On Flightsim.Com, FS9 repaint files are updated daily with numerous
new offers for both Civil, Military and Scenery chapters.

On comparaison, FlightSim.Com FSX repaint files are almost dead
with some repaint offers only from time to time.

6.
I have both FS9 and FSX installed on a super powerfull PC and I am
on the FS9 application 80 % of my flightsim time.

Why ?

Time to download FSX applications compared to FS9 plus the fact that
FSX have almost none military air bases sceneries contrary to FS9.

7.
I agree that FSX have some real advantages but the FSX disavantages are by far bigger and I really think that FSX real usage among flightsimmers is a myth !
:mixedsmi:
VaporZ

[Cees Donker]

Caution: we don't want to stir up the old discussion about FS9 versus FSX again!

:173go1:

Cees

[stiz]

aww why not cees?? some people like to smack their heads against the wall :isadizzy::icon_lol:

[PilatusTurbo]

" aww why not cees?? some people like to smack their heads against the wall :isadizzy::icon_lol: "

LOL YES!!! :bump: :d :d

[falcon409]

Caution: we don't want to stir up the old discussion about FS9 versus FSX again!
Cees
Nope, it's a no-win discussion that has passionate supporters on both sides, each with what they feel are perfectly legitimate reasons why their sim is the best. No one wins and it never serves any real purpose.

No reason to get anyone's blood pressure up. Like Cees said. . .not again!:salute:

[Odie]

I'm one of those that just can't decide whether to go with one or the other....so I fly both ! Lots of goodie still left in FS9 and lots of new stuff in FSX! :icon_lol:

In fact I just now transferred my VRS Super Hornet (dang bug!) from my old gaming rig to my new one and will purchase the FSX version as well. Did the same
with the Warbirdsim P-51B/C. Lots of stuff still going strong in FS9...so much that I like, it's still viable.

[dandog]

I think the whole thing smacks of a very real problem, world wide: consumerism. We download a new a model and diddle with it long enough until something new comes out. Then we want that! I already have enough FS9 models to last me a long, long time. Did I put in enough time to fully grasp all of the detail of each of these models? Can I "fly" them by the numbers and nail each landing? No! I downloaded another. And played some more.

I believe that modelers like Lionheart, Shupe and Co., and endless others, put more into a given model than most simmers will ever know. Instead, we look to the next release! We do not appreciate what we have. We do not apply ourselves!

So, until one cannot fully appreciate what is before you, please do not rail against those who do not give you more.

Just an observation on my behalf. Nothing personal.

[Tom Clayton]

I believe that modelers like Lionheart, Shupe and Co., and endless others, put more into a given model than most simmers will ever know.

Agreed! One of the things I like to do when I get a model with a good virtual interior is to move around inside and expolore - both visually and with the mouse. Samdim's Tu-114 is a perfect example of this - just drop down into the navigator's station during a landing replay! Another good example is Anton Nikolaev's An-14. Move back into the cabin and look for mouse-over hotspots - especially the first aid kit!:isadizzy:

Many of Bill's models have a lot of little "Easter Eggs" too. Just check inside the cooler on the Tailwind!

[Francois]

With all due respect, Michael, there is nothing wrong with having FS9 as your personal favorite...after all....some people still consider fs2002 their personal favorite, and FSX wouldn't exist without fs9 and so on...so for a developer who is as well respected as Bill Ortis to say that he has a soft spot for fs9 isn't in any way telling me that FSX folks will be getting less than 100% from him; He is one of the best fs developers out there today, and a great person to boot. That is the reason I started this thread; That is the reason for my disappointment. Too many developers out there whose hearts AREN'T in it...regardless of the sim they use...and when certian developers produce an addon, you know you are getting something special...something that required heart, soul, and dedication. I envy the FSX crowd that will be able to fire up the Epic VLJ when it is relesed. And i will peruse the FSX forum looking for screenshots and ooohs and aaaahs and how awesome it is....because everything that Bill does is excellent. Sorry I went off ranting again.....

Just an observation from one of those evil pubishers who (almost) went to the 'dark side'...... and this is firmly tongue-in-cheek, gentlemen: I believe there are passionate developers and publishers making products for BOTH versions of the sim, just like there are many 'also-runs' producing not-so-great products for BOTH versions.

I don't think the choice of production platform has anything to do with that, and I know for sure that the choice more often than not was forced by Microsoft's decisions on how to build FSX and what resources one has than anything else.

Better stay level headed about this ;-)

[casey jones]

I will just continue with FS9, there are just tons of airplanes availble. I cannot afford a new PC for FSX. I just get alot out of FS9.

Cheers

Casey:applause:

[magoo]

I picked up FSX when it first arrived. It sure looked interesting and (yep) you needed a pc with pretty big pipes to get any satisfaction out of it. Have had the new megbox since last summer and still haven't reloaded FSX yet. I've hoarded so many downloads for FS9, it's probably going to take another year before I get through them all. ( Like AH Tiger Moth, bought when released, only installed now.)
Good side of all this? When FSX came out, there was nothing to do but adapt FS9 addons to it. Each day goes by, more developers create native works for X. By the time I get to it, plenty of sussing will have been already done.

Now....what was I doing....? Oh yeah...sinking AI at Alameda. Gotta go.

[arrowmaker]

Well I've just listened to episode 50 of FSBreak and in it the guys discuss the future of flightsim in general. One prediction they had was that as a result of more and more people replacing their pc's that support for FS9 would drop off dramatically during 2010.

Now I fly in both sims pretty much on an equal basis, especially after installing REX into FS9. I can't see myself abandoning FS9 altogether any time soon, either. There are simply too many, favourite, aircraft I have that simply don't port well, if at all, into FSX, eg Aeroworx B200.

If I'm honest though I am surprised that support for FS9 has lasted as long as it has. It is after all over 6 1/2 years old. Heck FSX is over 3 years old and a lot of folks haven't even upgraded to that yet.

[Matt Wynn]

i got FSX, just can't get it above 110-13fps, even on no autogen etc... anyways i can see FS9 being around for a long time yet, on another note anyone heard from kyrypust recently about his L-39? my jaw is still on the floor and starting to get sore from dragging it around :icon_lol:

[cheezyflier]

if you're gettin over 100 fps you really have a nice computer

[VaporZ]

Complement of information.

due to the limitations of the human eye, it is impossible for any of us to differenciate fps settings over 30 fps.

this being said a 45, 55 or even 75 fps is impossible to differenciate from a human point of view.

we are not cats
we are not hawks

we are just humans
:mixedsmi:
VaporZ

[Daube]

Complement of information.

due to the limitations of the human eye, it is impossible for any of us to differenciate fps settings over 30 fps.

this being said a 45, 55 or even 75 fps is impossible to differenciate from a human point of view.

we are not cats
we are not hawks

we are just humans
:mixedsmi:
VaporZ

It would be nice if this myth could dissapear once for all.
The human eye makes a sampling of the world at 24 FPS.
To make a good sampling, the original signal must be at least twice as big as the sample frequency, else some parts of the signal may be lost.
That means that it will make a difference if you show to the human eye an animation at 24 FPS or an animation at 48 FPS.
Above 50 FPS, the differences will be very hard to percieve, though.

[Lionheart]

Well I've just listened to episode 50 of FSBreak and in it the guys discuss the future of flightsim in general. One prediction they had was that as a result of more and more people replacing their pc's that support for FS9 would drop off dramatically during 2010.

Now I fly in both sims pretty much on an equal basis, especially after installing REX into FS9. I can't see myself abandoning FS9 altogether any time soon, either. There are simply too many, favourite, aircraft I have that simply don't port well, if at all, into FSX, eg Aeroworx B200.

If I'm honest though I am surprised that support for FS9 has lasted as long as it has. It is after all over 6 1/2 years old. Heck FSX is over 3 years old and a lot of folks haven't even upgraded to that yet.


I cant see putting away my FS9 pack for a couple of more years yet, maybe even longer.

Some sims fall short, and some are just exactly what most people want. I have shelved Rise of Flight and X-Plane. ROF was so difficult, I was never able to shoot down another plane in the several months I had it going. XP9 was just to difficult to convert to and its controls system was a bit antiquated. FS9 though... Boots up so fast, runs sooo smooth...

I just wish I could get high detail models into FS9.. That is my one single stumbling block presently with it. Well, I wish I could increase texture sizes to 2048, and also increase ground texture resolutions... arrgh.


Bill

[bazzar]

Hi Bill,

I'd just like to make a comment or two here if that's OK.

To have a new compiler for FS9 that can output large models would be great admittedly. However, do you not run into a problem if the FS9 engine simply can't render them?

We "broke the bank"(probably by accident rather than design!) once and got a 90,000 poly + exterior model out through the compiler.

What appeared in FS9 was remarkable for that sim. However a frame rate of 1.5 fps would not have pleased the majority of our market!

Now for those that need clarification.

Most commercial developers do not use GMax but use the pro "father" of it called 3DS Max. This beautiful thing has a huge bunch of extra tools, abilities and tricks to aid devs in producing what they want, faster. The output process for example, takes a few seconds rather than several minutes, so testing a new creation is much more pleasurable and faster.

Apart from the initial cost of the software, there are, however some drawbacks. 3DSMax is updated every year, with a new version.

The output modules for FS for 3DSMax (Gmax has its own setup) are third party additions and are reliant on being updated themselves. Currently, 3DSMax9 is experiencing probs in outputting for FS9, as it is , quite naturally, configured to work for FSX or the new generation of other games.

To produce for FS9 therefore, one really needs to go back to Max7 or 8 which means carrying a separate install on the graphics machine.

Also, none of the protocols for FSX are retro-reversable for FS9 so the models have to be re-built with new animations, materials and more. It is not simply a matter of re-importing the FSX model and modifying it.

Going the other way- FS9 built converted to FSX is also a nightmare as the model is relatively low poly for FS9 and unless one wants a lot of FSX people complaining about the lack of detail, one has to add a lot more polys or start again, to build for that sim.

I won't go into the mess that MS has left us with in terms of SDKs and compatability, that is a subject for another forum.

I have mentioned only some of the frustrations of building for both sims so perhaps you can now see why most commercial devs will move, as in other games, to the latest generation. It is simply commercially unviable to build for two.

I wish Bill luck with his quest but I can't help thinking that it may be a LOT of work for a sim with ultimately a limited lifespan. As computers get better and devs get smarter, things will improve for FSX and the next gen sims.

I wonder how many of us will fly FS9 (even out of curiosity) in say, two years time? It is likely to take that long to crack a new output engine.

How many fly FS8 these days?

Party on dudes.:icon29:

[Wing_Z]

From flightsim.com (13 years young, another landmark sim, like FS9) :

FS98 - FS98
FS98 Adventure--Mayday Out Of Gas
[ Download | View ]

Name: nogasch1.zip Size: 3,368,716 Date: 01-10-2009 Downloads: 33
FS98 Adventure--Mayday Out Of Gas. You are making a normal flight to Willard, Illinois then you run out of gas in the middle of nowhere. There are three or four close airports you can try for. By Tonyzo/Javier Lee.

Go for it, you guys!

[Wing_Z]

It would be nice if this myth could dissapear once for all.
The human eye makes a sampling of the world at 24 FPS.
To make a good sampling, the original signal must be at least twice as big as the sample frequency, else some parts of the signal may be lost.
That means that it will make a difference if you show to the human eye an animation at 24 FPS or an animation at 48 FPS.
Above 50 FPS, the differences will be very hard to percieve, though.

First I've heard.
What are your sources for this?
The world's TV and cinema industries are converging on 24 fps.

[OBIO]

If I'm honest though I am surprised that support for FS9 has lasted as long as it has. It is after all over 6 1/2 years old. Heck FSX is over 3 years old and a lot of folks haven't even upgraded to that yet.

I'm not surprised that support for FS9 has lasted as long as it has...6 1/2 years...and I don't foresee a total end to development for FS9 any time in the coming years. When a sim works right, when it feels right, when it is reliable and stable...people will stick with it.

Take a look at CFS2...10 year old...and there are still new planes being produced, scenery, mesh, missions, campaigns. 10 years old...still going strong.

Like I said, when a sim works right, feels right, is reliable and stable...people stick with it.

OBIO

[Astoroth]

I wish Bill luck with his quest but I can't help thinking that it may be a LOT of work for a sim with ultimately a limited lifespan. As computers get better and devs get smarter, things will improve for FSX and the next gen sims.



With the Demise of Aces Studio, you don't think FSX has a limited lifespan? It's pretty much a sure bet that IF there is a next gen sim, there will be NO compatibility at ALL with FSX either.....

So why should those of us that are happy with our FS9 setups upgrade to another "dead horse".....

[Lionheart]

Edit: Never mind.


I shouldnt bring these things up.

I love my FS9. There... :d

[strega13]

as it is sad to see development of payware products for a beloved sim like FS9 slow down as it is and as steadily been after release of FSX , i understand it completely . on a purely financial point of view , they have to move on to what will allow them to justify keeping the investment of developing add-on models going for many reasons , whether it be just to sell more models or to have them being more visually detailed . and since a good part of the sim community , especially the part that buys add-ons , has moved to the newer , shinier toy , it is nothing but logical that the payware developers follows the same path as well . many chose to keep dual development of add-ons for both platforms and i cannot thank or applaud them enough for that ( even though i haven't been able to afford any payware product , supporting their effort in the process , for a bit over a year now ... yeah time are tough but it should get better soon and i will be able to get payware products for FS9 again in a few months hopefully like the tongas/misty fjords and all other FS addon programs , REX , carenado planes , all the lionheart FS9 add-ons i still do not have and too many others to list ) .
it is impossible to deny the passion of many of these developers for aviation and flight simulation , especially when they have released many of their creations as freeware ( the awesome bugatti package which i bought when it was still payware or many of the alphasim , now freeware , planes just to name a few examples ) and they create them with an incredible amount of visual or functionality details and/or when they create models that go beyond the usual boeing/airbus/cessna/F16/P51 mustang...and wishing their demise as posted previously is just despicable and beyond childish .
whichever the medium chosen , i have nothing but admiration for the people who create all these addons ( payware and freeware ) and wish all of them the best in the future and in their endeavors :applause::applause::applause:

[bazzar]

With the Demise of Aces Studio, you don't think FSX has a limited lifespan? It's pretty much a sure bet that IF there is a next gen sim, there will be NO compatibility at ALL with FSX either.....

So why should those of us that are happy with our FS9 setups upgrade to another "dead horse".....

Nobody is suggesting that you need to upgrade. FS9 is great, I fly it a lot myself.

Bill's quest is to find a way to make models for FS9 more like FSX with more detail and other enhancements.

What I am saying is that it is doubtful with no support now for FS9 (or FSX for that matter) it will be a struggle to create a compiler and an even greater one to get the sim to accept the resultant model.

There may be compatability in the future, who knows? All I know is the cost to produce for two simulators which basically offer the same gaming experience, is prohibitive, commercially.

Right now, FSX is the game of choice for commercial sales so common sense would indicate that there lies the market..

If we thought people would pay the same price as FSX for FS9 models and the volume would be there, I doubt if you would see any developer leave the field.

:engel016:

[Daube]

First I've heard.
What are your sources for this?
The world's TV and cinema industries are converging on 24 fps.

My sources are my studies in electronic, specifically the electronic signals.
People usually do the mistake to compare the video games with the cinema.
The cinema movies are indeed shown at 24 or 25 FPS. But unlike the video games frames, the cinema frames are "motion blurred", meaning that there is some blur of the picture (just like when you take a picture of a moving person with your photo-camera) that helps the human eye (brain) building a smooth transition from a frame to the next.

In video games however, at least in FSX, we do not have any motion blur effect, each frame is pefectly crisp. As a consequence, the human eye sees the transition from a frame to the next quite easilly, and this is why we perceive the "stuttering".

Because of that, if our eyes look at a video game running at 25 FPS, it will not be perfectly smooth. If the video game runs at 30 FPS, it will be better, and if it runs higher, it will be even better, because the eye will be less and less able to spot the transition from a frame to the next.

That being said, if we would have some kind of good motion blur effect in the game, then even at 25 FPS it would be perceived as perfectly smooth. But since we do not have that, we need more FPS to compensate :)

[Reddog]

I'm not surprised that support for FS9 has lasted as long as it has...6 1/2 years...and I don't foresee a total end to development for FS9 any time in the coming years. When a sim works right, when it feels right, when it is reliable and stable...people will stick with it.

Take a look at CFS2...10 year old...and there are still new planes being produced, scenery, mesh, missions, campaigns. 10 years old...still going strong.

Like I said, when a sim works right, feels right, is reliable and stable...people stick with it.

OBIO
Gee u must be talking aboutFSX:bump: